Why arent the smartest people running our countries?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I can say should because I would assume most people want a good life - in my book it is not rational to not to want social skills, humans are a social species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are wrong. Reason doesn't specify goals or standards - that's not how it works. The goal of dying miserably is no more or less rational than the goal of being happy. You could argue that development of social skills is a necessary step toward most human goals, and that a perfectly rational individual will therefore develop his social skills, but that's a long way from saying any intelligent person will do so. No human being comes close to being perfectly rational.

[ QUOTE ]
Strength and similar are also good traits, but social skills are mostly a combination of processes taking place in the brain, hence I think they should be counted in on intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they both happen in the brain they're the same thing?

Generally when we describe "intelligence" we refer to analytical ability in some form. We group things like memory in as well because they correlate very strongly with analytical ability and can have similar observable effects. There's some controversy regarding the exact nature of intelligence (see the arguments about g in the race thread), but it definitely includes a closely-related cluster of traits related to academic achievement, problem solving, critical thinking, and mathematical ability. It's important to be able to talk about this cluster of traits.

Social skills are a different thing entirely. First, social ability doesn't seem to correlate positively with analytical ability. Second, social ability is unrelated to the kinds of tasks that depend on analytical ability. Third, social interactions appear to work in different ways and on different physical "channels" from thought exercises.

You could say that the genius mathematician and the charismatic actor are both highly intelligent, but in different ways. However, this definition of "intelligence" isn't very useful, and it's confusing given the ordinary definition of the term. Some of the most charismatic and interpersonally gifted people in the world have trouble solving even basic algebra problems, and some of the most brilliant thinkers in the world have trouble making friends and avoiding awkwardness in even basic social situations. Grouping these people together is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but a complete intelligence measure would most likely have several scales. Just like it would be illogical to think of a computer in terms of only one number, it doesn't make sense to reduce the cognitive ability to a much more complex machine into a single number. Especially not when we know the current number (IQ) doesn't measure much of what that 'machine' (us) will have to solve in most cases.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but a complete intelligence measure would most likely have several scales. Just like it would be illogical to think of a computer in terms of only one number, it doesn't make sense to reduce the cognitive ability to a much more complex machine into a single number. Especially not when we know the current number (IQ) doesn't measure much of what that 'machine' (us) will have to solve in most cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence isn't the whole of what the machine can do. That has never been the way "intelligence" has been used. Intelligence is just one part of it. And that part isn't the social part.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The brain is a very adaptable organ, intelligence (in any form you wish to measure it as a result of brain processes) will be/is trainable. Also see the above post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow man. I look forward to your paper on how humans can improve IQ by 30 points.

[/ QUOTE ]

That actually isn't so hard if you are in the low or averages, train on IQ tests and you should be able to pull it off if you work hard. If you are higher on the scale it will get increasingly harder ofcourse.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean it - if you believe this I seriously look forward to the paper. You'd either prove that IQ testing is largely bogus (it's still thought of as largely valid by most psychologists), or that actual intelligence can be massively improved by training. From my knowledge of current psychology I believe this would be a huge revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have seen a classic IQ test you would know they are all about pattern recognition on linguistics, geometrical figures and numbers. All these are trainable skills. Getting good at these tests is no more astounding than getting better at crosswords. The brain changes if you train it - it is a simple principle, and without that principle you couldn't learn stuff, get new skills or get better at things.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is the LSAT - it measures acquired verbal reasoning skills which are supposedly highly trainable, and has a section containing logic puzzles similar to IQ tests. Yet despite the fact that a good LSAT score is highly prized, you can't greatly improve your score no matter how much training is done. A 150 will never score a perfect 180. That may sound shocking, but it's fact. If you look at the test data of second test takers, you'll see less than 1 in 1000 144- score above 160 on their second attempt. And that includes people who were sick, distracted, extremely nervous, underprepared, or suffering from stereotype threat(lol) on the first go. Pretty shocking, no?

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/2006-2007/i...tionbk2006.pdf

This is simple stuff - reading comprehension, understanding of language, pattern recognition, and general comprehension. To someone like me with less than a Mensa IQ, they're incredibly easy. Yet others struggle and improve little, even with substantial training.

I know you think that intelligence is trainable and that the brain's processing power is wonderfully malleable, but the data I can find indicates that it's nowhere near as trainable as you believe. Do you have any hard evidence that people can improve their IQ that much?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
To someone like me with less than a Mensa IQ,

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF, I would take an even money bet that you would make a Mensa-worthy IQ score even after 36 hours of sleep deprivation.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
So is the LSAT - it measures acquired verbal reasoning skills which are supposedly highly trainable, and has a section containing logic puzzles similar to IQ tests. Yet despite the fact that a good LSAT score is highly prized, you can't greatly improve your score no matter how much training is done. A 150 will never score a perfect 180. That may sound shocking, but it's fact. If you look at the test data of second test takers, you'll see less than 1 in 1000 144- score above 160 on their second attempt. And that includes people who were sick, distracted, extremely nervous, underprepared, or suffering from stereotype threat(lol) on the first go. Pretty shocking, no?

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/2006-2007/i...tionbk2006.pdf

This is simple stuff - reading comprehension, understanding of language, pattern recognition, and general comprehension. To someone like me with less than a Mensa IQ, they're incredibly easy. Yet others struggle and improve little, even with substantial training.

I know you think that intelligence is trainable and that the brain's processing power is wonderfully malleable, but the data I can find indicates that it's nowhere near as trainable as you believe. Do you have any hard evidence that people can improve their IQ that much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

This would suggest people are hardwired for intelligence either at birth or a young age. My school administered IQ tests to everyone at the age of 12. Do you know if young kids, are able to noticeably improve IQ results through training? Does anyone know at what age approximately you are hardwired? Are you aware of any genes that have been isolated that are common to just really intelligent folk?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF, I would take an even money bet that you would make a Mensa-worthy IQ score even after 36 hours of sleep deprivation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, remember that Feynman got a crappy score. Eerie.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The brain is a very adaptable organ, intelligence (in any form you wish to measure it as a result of brain processes) will be/is trainable. Also see the above post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow man. I look forward to your paper on how humans can improve IQ by 30 points.

[/ QUOTE ]

That actually isn't so hard if you are in the low or averages, train on IQ tests and you should be able to pull it off if you work hard. If you are higher on the scale it will get increasingly harder ofcourse.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean it - if you believe this I seriously look forward to the paper. You'd either prove that IQ testing is largely bogus (it's still thought of as largely valid by most psychologists), or that actual intelligence can be massively improved by training. From my knowledge of current psychology I believe this would be a huge revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have seen a classic IQ test you would know they are all about pattern recognition on linguistics, geometrical figures and numbers. All these are trainable skills. Getting good at these tests is no more astounding than getting better at crosswords. The brain changes if you train it - it is a simple principle, and without that principle you couldn't learn stuff, get new skills or get better at things.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is the LSAT - it measures acquired verbal reasoning skills which are supposedly highly trainable, and has a section containing logic puzzles similar to IQ tests. Yet despite the fact that a good LSAT score is highly prized, you can't greatly improve your score no matter how much training is done. A 150 will never score a perfect 180. That may sound shocking, but it's fact. If you look at the test data of second test takers, you'll see less than 1 in 1000 144- score above 160 on their second attempt. And that includes people who were sick, distracted, extremely nervous, underprepared, or suffering from stereotype threat(lol) on the first go. Pretty shocking, no?

http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/2006-2007/i...tionbk2006.pdf

This is simple stuff - reading comprehension, understanding of language, pattern recognition, and general comprehension. To someone like me with less than a Mensa IQ, they're incredibly easy. Yet others struggle and improve little, even with substantial training.

I know you think that intelligence is trainable and that the brain's processing power is wonderfully malleable, but the data I can find indicates that it's nowhere near as trainable as you believe. Do you have any hard evidence that people can improve their IQ that much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, it will get harder the nearer the top you get. Also the brain is rather rigid later in life compared to younger years, so there is limit to what you can train it to.

No human being can make even bad scores on an intelligence test without some formal training though, which really is all the evidence you need.

That some may be closer to their potential than others doesn't detract from that, this isn't rigid science - people are different initially and will also have experienced and learned different things.